if one has read, and formed some understanding, and has even a small, or
partial agreement with Duncan's "Descent into the Olduai Valley" theory,
[found on the 'dieoff' site], doesn't it make most of all this banter
superflous?
for a 'crashlist' , this seems to be coming less informative and more a
pissin' contest; i.e. whose knowledge of theoretical political science(?) is
the greater? rather than : whose conception of reality [the crash], with
all its attendant nuances and subtleties, is the more perceptive and
ingenious and practical and therfor, of value?
sorry -
where's the beef?
Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: crl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 03:24
Subject: [CrashList] Re: Warning Signs?
>
> > What
> > has made me so
> > antagonistic toward the marxist position of late is not
> > that the specific
> > developments are not addressed by Marx, but that *because*
> > the developments
> > are not addressed marxists tend to remain either in denial
> > or resort to
> > pejorative attacks on those who are "screaming" the warning
> > signs, as Carrol
> > puts it. More better to approach it as Mark has been doing:
> > which is to draw
> > general directions from Marx and then formulate
> > propositions to address the
> > specific environmental developments. Too often this is seen
> > as heresy by
> > others ... others in denial, IMO.
>
> Tom, you are comoderating the group, I'm inclined to think it might be
> sensible for me to be less active and make mroe space for you, Hallyx,
> Tahir and others to give it direction. Incidentally the website is
> pretty much my own invention so it reflects my priorities. But it is
> up to others to put stuff up that they way to see there. The purpose
> is to create better analysis and debate. It is not happening.
>
> > No. I am saying it is not THE key factor! The primary
> > factor in today's
> > environmental crisis is our delinkage from perception of
> > the consequences.
> > All else is important, but secondary, and necessarily
> > follows from this
> > factor. The concentration upon capitalism alone obscures
> > this, and that's
> > why those who "hide" inside marxist dogma (not you Charles)
> > need to be
> > awakened.
>
> I still don't know other than in a general way, exactly what your
> biggest environmental concerns are, and why. Is it greenhouse, mass
> extinction, or what? I still have yet to see a clear statement on why
> YOU think a Crash is inevitable. If this is because you made it but I
> was to thick to notice, I apologise in advance.
>
> > Do you remember where Marx exhibits a
> > perception of the need for
> > > population control?
> > >
>
> There is a lot in Marx about population issues by Marx isn't the bible
> and all that matters is its contemporary relevance, or not.
>
> > Tom:
> > Well we have here a fundamental difference of opinion.
> > Almost every person
> > active in the environmental discussion rates the population
> > bomb as the
> > problem that must be dealt with before the others can be
> > solved.
>
> Again, it would be helpful to see some chapter and verse Tom. There
> are at least 3 issues that do scream out for serious analysis.
>
> (1) IS THERE a population bomb? I have just read a report suggesting
> that world pop. growth is now down to about 1.1%. That may still
> produce 7 or 8 billion people by 2030-2050. But not 9 or 10 bn. That's
> a BIG difference. What's more, the offsets are now becoming very
> powerful factors: I mean declining birthrates in Japan, Europe and
> elesewhere which will lead to rapid populaion FALLS. That can also
> happen in China, where a LOT of lonely single children with very
> fewing living relatives will grow old this century. Then there are
> mass dieoffs on-going in Russia and Africa, and all the signs are that
> the dieoofs are accelerating as public health systems break down. What
> is your take on these issues? We need to know.
>
> (2) what IS the main worry about population? Is it just numbers, or is
> it the problem of carrying capacity ie the fact that every European or
> American puts about 20x the burden on the environment and resources
> that someone in South Asia puts? Which IS the problem, numbers or
> carrying capacity?
>
> 3) The worst population problem appears to me to be in the US where
> higher birthrates + immigration may produce a pop. of 500m by 2050 and
> even 750m later on. That will be comopletely unsustainable on the
> basis of present US lifestyles, energy consumption, water consumption
> etc. What iis your take on that? Do you stop tham at the broders? Or
> do you *CHANGE THE US SOCIAL SYSTEM*?
>
> If you and Hallyx and others can give us some guidance on these
> questions, I'm sure there'll be less hair-splitting about value, as
> you put it.
>
> There are similar issues we've got. There is a big debate going on now
> about how much C02 causes warming, and how much it's due to other
> greenhouse gases: SOX, NOX, particulates, aerosols, albedo effects,
> chlorofluorocarbons and the like. It's been suggested by James Hansen
> that CO2 is not the problem, we thought, that global warming may not
> be so serious as we thought, and it makes more sense perhaps to try to
> reduce other greenhouse emissions and like the fossil-burners and SUV
> drivers go on doing their thing.
> (altho if you read the paper where Hansen seems to suggest it, it's
> not clear he does say this). I would like to know what Tom, Hallyx and
> others specifically think about this ongoing debate, which featured in
> an NYT article the other day. I have been trying to raise these
> issues, without much success.
>
> >
> > True. Unfortunately the Masai-type actions (and not just
> > them, let's not
> > pick on them or let them stand for all 3rd world
> > enviro-destruction.) are
> > more critical than you realize, since by and large these
> > folks are located
> > where the interface with the environment is more critical than, say,
> > downtown New York.
>
> Could we have some serious scholarly chapter and verse to back this
> up?
>
> And yes the capitalist cause coming out
> > of New York is at
> > the root of the overwhelming majority of environmental
> > destruction. But the
> > capitalist cause is not what's killing the last 30 desert
> > leopards in
> > Russia, nor the last 300 chimpanzees in Zaire. We need to
> > keep that in mind.
>
> Actually the fate of the snow tigers and bears and other species has
> an awful lot to do with clearfelling of Siberian forest, with hunting
> parties for westerners, with the Asian trade in exotic medicines etc.
> Again, I'd like to see chapter and verse support8ing these assertions.
> And let us also debate what the ISSUE actually is: is it the fate of
> big, photogenic animals that is the problem, or the mass exticntion of
> flora and fauna in the rainforests, whose exactly role in supporting
> whole ecosystems we simply don't know much about? Maybe an even
> greater worry is at the level of soil microbial life, which is crucial
> to ALL life higher up the food chain and which seems to be being badly
> affected by anthropogenic atmospheric change. Let's spend less time
> marx-bashing and more time doing detailed work on these issues? If Tom
> is an environmentalist by trade, he can help us very much here.
>
> > Tom:
> > The following belongs to another discussion for later: the
> > sad record of
> > human history is a record where many more environmental
> > crises have been
> > covered up than have been reported to us. I suspect you
> > discount this a bit
> > too much. (example: do you know about pre-Inca irrigation
> > practices and
> > their effect upon that civilization?)
>
> Tell us about it! And then show its relevance ( there IS some) to our
> own global difficulty today.
>
> > Not "all" ... but "most". And that evidence is very clear and well
> > documented. (again, read Daniel Quinn or Arne Naess -- or
> > even Tragedy of
> > the Commons for the required demonstration.)
>
> It would be good - again - to know more about why we should read these
> people. I have posted Sahtouris (why, by the way, is not at all
> opposed to corporate capitalism), and I have posted stuff by Arne
> Naess and other deep-ecos. Please do more of the same, because I
> agree, it's important.
>
>
> Those that
> > express ecological
> > consciousness are in retreat or destroyed, by capitalists worldwide,
> > marxists in China, and totalitarians in Africa, the Middle
> > East, and South
> > America etc etc ad infinitum.
>
> I'd love to have much more deep-eco stuff here. I have tried hard to
> encourage them to participate, and Elisabeth Sahtouris WAS prepared to
> participate in our discussions. Someone has to make it all happen.
>
>
> >
> > > By the way, see _Man In Adaptation: The Cultural Past_ ,
> > edited by Yehudi
> > Cohen, which presents evidence of ecological consciousness
> > and practice in
> > many human societies throughout history.
>
> Is it possible to put more on the list by/about Cohen?
>
> > Tom:
> > Again, a fundamental difference of opinion.1) Time is
> > critical. If we
> > concentrate all our efforts on capitalism we lose critical
> > parts of the
> > ecosystem we cannot afford to lose, heretofore overlooked
> > in the backwaters
> > of the world.
>
> Again, this is surely true, but this list loses its point if all we do
> is make rival assertions without trying to back them out with some
> serious information, science, links, references etc. I get the feeling
> that some people are sitting around feeling frustrated with the
> direction we are taking, without however doing anything at all to put
> us right, give us new and better directions, give us material to think
> about and discuss and work on, etc.
>
>
> > Tom:
> > This gets back to the "specific, climatic and ecological
> > processes of the
> > year 2000" and I guess a difference in our perceptions,
> > Charles. By 2025
> > when there ae 8.5 billion souls, *no one* can provide for
> > them adequately.
>
> These figures may well be right, but right now they are beiong widely
> questioned, so where (sorry to bang on) is the chapter and verse? We
> need to do this. You can start with David Pimentel and then look at
> his critics. Jay has some of this stuff on his website but there is
> much more out there and we need both sides of the story; there are
> serious arguments in favour of the idea that the world can still
> comfortable feed 8 bn people, and that population this century will
> reach its peak and be back to 6bn by2100; so it is being argued that
> there will be no Crash, just a difficult but doable transition. We
> have to ADDRESS THOSE ARGUMENTS.
>
> .
> > I have said that
> > very little has been put forth by marxists to address
> > environmental concerns
> > from their perspective.
>
> Unfortunately, very little has been put forward by *anybody* on this
> list of *any* persuasion.
>
> > What I
> > have asked
> > for -- to little avail -- is that the partial solutions be
> > stated and
> > examined.
>
> Then let's begin. Who disagrees?
>
> Let us by all means discuss deep-eco ideas, beginning with Arne Naess.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
